Buy.com's answer to Apple's music store - Buymusic.com - Update with review!

[loup garou]

Originally posted by: manly

Originally posted by: jumpr
I can't tell the difference on my Logitech Z560s between 128 kbps mp3 and MAC. However, I love the idea that I will be able to convert to whichever emerging codec comes about without sacrificing quality. If I'm paying for music, it better be archival quality.

It's like the difference between 87 brightness and 92 brightness computer paper - either will do, but when it counts, brighter is better.

Although geeks whine about mp3 quality, I doubt most have quality speakers where you could even tell the difference between 128 kbps and 256 kbps.

And most consumers have even worse sound systems than geeks. Judging from the number of people who burn mp3s from kazaa straight to CD, the overwhelming majority simply don't care what the bitrate is.

That's a very bad example. It's very easy to discern the difference between 128kbps mp3s and any higher bitrate mp3. If you had said 192 and 320, then I'd agree, but if you don't think 128 sounds like crap, you need to have your ears checked.

 

[glugglug]

The site doesn't work in Mozilla because the USER_AGENT doesn't identify itself as Microsoft Internet Explorer!!!

Changing the USER_AGENT in Opera I was able to view the site, and wished I didn't.

 

Originally posted by: werk

iTunes Music Store Not Available

The iTunes Music Store requires:

A Macintosh computer (iBook, PowerBook, iMac, eMac or Power Mac)
Mac OS X 10.1.5 or later. (version 10.2.5 or later recommended)
iTunes 4 must be installed
Internet connection (DSL, Cable or LAN connection recommended)
Apple ID or .Mac account. If you don?t have one, it?s easy to sign-up.
The iTunes Music Store is only available in the U.S.

WAAAAH WAAAAH WAAAAAH

Yeah but iTMS is only for Mac users. All Mac browsers work with it. Buy's store only works with IE, even on Windows. Not to mention their downloads are way more restrictive when compared to iTMS. And good luck getting those WMA files on your iPod.

 

[loup garou]

Originally posted by: dwell

Originally posted by: werk

iTunes Music Store Not Available

The iTunes Music Store requires:

A Macintosh computer (iBook, PowerBook, iMac, eMac or Power Mac)
Mac OS X 10.1.5 or later. (version 10.2.5 or later recommended)
iTunes 4 must be installed
Internet connection (DSL, Cable or LAN connection recommended)
Apple ID or .Mac account. If you don?t have one, it?s easy to sign-up.
The iTunes Music Store is only available in the U.S.

WAAAAH WAAAAH WAAAAAH

Yeah but iTMS is only for Mac users. All Mac browsers work with it. Buy's store only works with IE, even on Windows. Not to mention their downloads are way more restrictive when compared to iTMS. And good luck getting those WMA files on your iPod.

Yeah but Buymusic is only for Windows users. IE is the only browser it supports, but would it kill anyone to open one site in IE? It's part of the OS, so everyone will have it. I agree with you on the restrictions. I fault the iPod for not supporting wma...it's a great format except for all the DRM junk.

BTW, I have absolutely no use for downloadable music. I would much rather buy a used cd and spend 5-10 minutes ripping and encoding it (to wma...muahahaha 😛). Then, I put the CD away in a binder and can rerip/encode it later if needed.

 

[Night201]

The owner (who used to own Buy.com), teamed up with Tommy Lee (Pamela's Tommy Lee) and they opened up this company. They were both on Howard Stern this morning.

 

[MrBond]

I *think* the reason IE is required is because of the licence download. The transfer of the licence is done in the background, you never get a download box or anything. All you see is a page that says "Please wait while your licence downloads" then a "licence transfered" page. If Mozilla/Opera/whatever supported the required DRM stuff that IE does, they'd probably support that browser.

When you see the first wave of software "rental" places online, you'll probably have the same problem with alternative browsers, because they aren't as tightly integrated into the OS.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: werk

Originally posted by: manly

Originally posted by: jumpr
I can't tell the difference on my Logitech Z560s between 128 kbps mp3 and MAC. However, I love the idea that I will be able to convert to whichever emerging codec comes about without sacrificing quality. If I'm paying for music, it better be archival quality.

It's like the difference between 87 brightness and 92 brightness computer paper - either will do, but when it counts, brighter is better.

Although geeks whine about mp3 quality, I doubt most have quality speakers where you could even tell the difference between 128 kbps and 256 kbps.

And most consumers have even worse sound systems than geeks. Judging from the number of people who burn mp3s from kazaa straight to CD, the overwhelming majority simply don't care what the bitrate is.

That's a very bad example. It's very easy to discern the difference between 128kbps mp3s and any higher bitrate mp3. If you had said 192 and 320, then I'd agree, but if you don't think 128 sounds like crap, you need to have your ears checked.

Yeah...I can tell between 128 and 256..Z560s & TBSC. Anything below 128kbps is horrible...I use 256kbps VBR when I rip my CDs..

 

[beer]

Originally posted by: MrBond
I *think* the reason IE is required is because of the licence download. The transfer of the licence is done in the background, you never get a download box or anything. All you see is a page that says "Please wait while your licence downloads" then a "licence transfered" page. If Mozilla/Opera/whatever supported the required DRM stuff that IE does, they'd probably support that browser.

When you see the first wave of software "rental" places online, you'll probably have the same problem with alternative browsers, because they aren't as tightly integrated into the OS.

So what happens if you reformat? Do you lose all your licensing?

 

[loup garou]

Originally posted by: Elemental007

Originally posted by: MrBond
I *think* the reason IE is required is because of the licence download. The transfer of the licence is done in the background, you never get a download box or anything. All you see is a page that says "Please wait while your licence downloads" then a "licence transfered" page. If Mozilla/Opera/whatever supported the required DRM stuff that IE does, they'd probably support that browser.

When you see the first wave of software "rental" places online, you'll probably have the same problem with alternative browsers, because they aren't as tightly integrated into the OS.

So what happens if you reformat? Do you lose all your licensing?

There is a licensing backup tool for WMP. I doubt anyone would remember to use it, though!

 

[MrBond]

Originally posted by: Elemental007

So what happens if you reformat? Do you lose all your licensing?

I think you can download the licence an unlimited amout of times from the website. When you first try and play the song, you have to login with your username/password and it downloads the licence. I did this about 3 times trying to get it to play in Winamp and it never mentioned it being "licence download X of Y"

 

[manly]

Originally posted by: werk

Originally posted by: manly

Originally posted by: jumpr
I can't tell the difference on my Logitech Z560s between 128 kbps mp3 and MAC. However, I love the idea that I will be able to convert to whichever emerging codec comes about without sacrificing quality. If I'm paying for music, it better be archival quality.

It's like the difference between 87 brightness and 92 brightness computer paper - either will do, but when it counts, brighter is better.

Although geeks whine about mp3 quality, I doubt most have quality speakers where you could even tell the difference between 128 kbps and 256 kbps.

And most consumers have even worse sound systems than geeks. Judging from the number of people who burn mp3s from kazaa straight to CD, the overwhelming majority simply don't care what the bitrate is.

That's a very bad example. It's very easy to discern the difference between 128kbps mp3s and any higher bitrate mp3. If you had said 192 and 320, then I'd agree, but if you don't think 128 sounds like crap, you need to have your ears checked.

I mostly disagree. I probably gave a figure worth debating, but seriously the vast majority of people have no issues at all with 128 kbps mp3s. Yes, it would have been safer if I had said 160 kbps (or 192 kbps), but I stand by the general argument.

For the record, I have Logitech Z560s, which aren't the cleanest PC speakers, but generally considered near the top for PC speakers. I'm definitely not an audiophile, but I'm trying to make a point that the true market for people who can honestly discern lower-quality music on their PCs is a pretty small minority outside of mainstream. Personally, I pick pretty high quality settings if I'm encoding music, but honestly it's not like I can really tell the difference once I get past 160 kbps. But since storage is so cheap, and I don't have a space-constrained portable mp3 player, I have no reason to optimize for space.

 

[loup garou]

Originally posted by: manly

Originally posted by: werk

Originally posted by: manly

Originally posted by: jumpr
I can't tell the difference on my Logitech Z560s between 128 kbps mp3 and MAC. However, I love the idea that I will be able to convert to whichever emerging codec comes about without sacrificing quality. If I'm paying for music, it better be archival quality.

It's like the difference between 87 brightness and 92 brightness computer paper - either will do, but when it counts, brighter is better.

Although geeks whine about mp3 quality, I doubt most have quality speakers where you could even tell the difference between 128 kbps and 256 kbps.

And most consumers have even worse sound systems than geeks. Judging from the number of people who burn mp3s from kazaa straight to CD, the overwhelming majority simply don't care what the bitrate is.

That's a very bad example. It's very easy to discern the difference between 128kbps mp3s and any higher bitrate mp3. If you had said 192 and 320, then I'd agree, but if you don't think 128 sounds like crap, you need to have your ears checked.

I mostly disagree. I probably gave a figure worth debating, but seriously the vast majority of people have no issues at all with 128 kbps mp3s. Yes, it would have been safer if I had said 160 kbps (or 192 kbps), but I stand by the general argument.

For the record, I have Logitech Z560s, which aren't the cleanest PC speakers, but generally considered near the top for PC speakers. I'm definitely not an audiophile, but I'm trying to make a point that the true market for people who can honestly discern lower-quality music on their PCs is a pretty small minority outside of mainstream. Personally, I pick pretty high quality settings if I'm encoding music, but honestly it's not like I can really tell the difference once I get past 160 kbps. But since storage is so cheap, and I don't have a space-constrained portable mp3 player, I have no reason to optimize for space.

I think the reason most people use/have 128kbps mp3s is not because they think they sound good, but because it is what most basic encoders are set to as default, or what the encoders describe as "cd quality." These are the same people who then share the majority of files on Kazzaa, etc, so they flood them with these files and other less savvy users download them.

 

[manly]

Originally posted by: werk

I think the reason most people use/have 128kbps mp3s is not because they think they sound good, but because it is what most basic encoders are set to as default, or what the encoders describe as "cd quality." These are the same people who then share the majority of files on Kazzaa, etc, so they flood them with these files and other less savvy users download them.

You're correct, that's definitely part of it; and I'm not saying they sound good or that my hearing sucks.

But rather that for this historical reason and others, the overwhelming majority of users simply don't know that 128 kbps is inferior and really can't tell much difference. Most people don't even have halfway-decent 2 speaker sets, so the quality issue just doesn't resonate with them.

As for geeks, sure a lot have Z560s or another good set, but many do not and are simply blowing smoke when they demand a lossless format.

The bottom line, and I think we both agree on this, is that for 95+ percent of the target audience, 160-192 kbps mp3 (or equivalent alternative, i.e. 128 kbps AAC or WMA) is perfectly acceptable from a sound quality standpoint.

 

[addragyn]

Originally posted by: addragyn
iTMS is AAC.

Ars has a good summary on the buymusic.com DRM here.

ZDNet has the same for iTMS here.


iTMS has what will probably be the best (litest) DRM we'll ever see. If it is not a success I think things will get worse. Apple is the music industrys guinea pig. If being nice doesn't work for sure they will lock sh*t down.

Beyond the DRM another thing I like about iTMS is that Apple told ALL the lables you all get the same deal. Take it or leave it. There is no VIP treatment for the majors and the indies get the same terms as the big guys. Knowing people who own studios and labels and play in bands I have to say this is *very cool*.

CD Baby will prep and submit your material to iTMS for $40 and a 9% cut! link That is national distribution for $40 & 9% with no ridiculous contracts or licensing away your music. If you know good local bands turn them on to this!


F buy.com and their record label cowardice! F buy.com and their ridiculous and inconsistent DRM! Same for their prices! F buy.com and their complete reliance on MS to the point of excluding all others! F buy.com and their copied ad campaign! Mostly F buy.com for thinking music consumer translates into idiot who won't understand they're being ripped off!
F me for Sounding like a Spike Lee joint!
😀


Ironic that buymusic.com isnb't really selling music at all and their ads are rip-offs of the iTMS ads. Bunch'o lying pirates! arrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Please read this this with your tongue pressed againts your cheek!

 

[Martin]

after looking through it, I have to say their song selection blows goats.....though I doubt apple's service would be any better.

 

[mpitts]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
after looking through it, I have to say their song selection blows goats.....though I doubt apple's service would be any better.

Why would you say that?

Apple's service is so much better than this service. Easier to use, easier to do what YOU want to do with the music that you buy, etc.

But, as always, people would rather mock Apple and their products instead of trying them.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: mpitts

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
after looking through it, I have to say their song selection blows goats.....though I doubt apple's service would be any better.

Why would you say that?

Apple's service is so much better than this service. Easier to use, easier to do what YOU want to do with the music that you buy, etc.

But, as always, people would rather mock Apple and their products instead of trying them.

I would try iTunes, but I don't have a mac. I say that becuase very few people listen to the music I like. If you have a mac, try finding the albums:
- Apocalyptica - Reflections
- Dimmu Borgir - Enthrone Darkness Triumphant
and tell me if you can find any Therion, Nightwish, Lacuna Coil, Dark Tranquility or Children of Bodom. Needless to say I will be (pleasantly) surprised if they have their songs.

 

[mpitts]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: mpitts

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
after looking through it, I have to say their song selection blows goats.....though I doubt apple's service would be any better.

Why would you say that?

Apple's service is so much better than this service. Easier to use, easier to do what YOU want to do with the music that you buy, etc.

But, as always, people would rather mock Apple and their products instead of trying them.

I would try iTunes, but I don't have a mac. I say that becuase very few people listen to the music I like. If you have a mac, try finding the albums:
- Apocalyptica - Reflections
- Dimmu Borgir - Enthrone Darkness Triumphant
and tell me if you can find any Therion, Nightwish, Lacuna Coil, Dark Tranquility or Children of Bodom. Needless to say I will be (pleasantly) surprised if they have their songs.

I took a look and only Apocalyptica came back with results. They had the entire Reflections record for $9.99 or .99 a song.

The truth is that the libraries for both online music services are limited right now. My arguement is that the iTunes Music Store experience has obviously been thought through much more than the buymusic.com solution. Apple has made it simple to buy, manage and burn the music that you buy, as opposed to buymusic.com's clunky solution.

If the sides were changed and Apple offered what buymusic.com is offering and vice-versa, the Apple hate would be coming from everyone about how crappy the solution is. But, since this solution competes with Apple, most people seem to be giving it the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: mpitts

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: mpitts

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
after looking through it, I have to say their song selection blows goats.....though I doubt apple's service would be any better.

Why would you say that?

Apple's service is so much better than this service. Easier to use, easier to do what YOU want to do with the music that you buy, etc.

But, as always, people would rather mock Apple and their products instead of trying them.

I would try iTunes, but I don't have a mac. I say that becuase very few people listen to the music I like. If you have a mac, try finding the albums:
- Apocalyptica - Reflections
- Dimmu Borgir - Enthrone Darkness Triumphant
and tell me if you can find any Therion, Nightwish, Lacuna Coil, Dark Tranquility or Children of Bodom. Needless to say I will be (pleasantly) surprised if they have their songs.

I took a look and only Apocalyptica came back with results. They had the entire Reflections record for $9.99 or .99 a song.

The truth is that the libraries for both online music services are limited right now. My arguement is that the iTunes Music Store experience has obviously been thought through much more than the buymusic.com solution. Apple has made it simple to buy, manage and burn the music that you buy, as opposed to buymusic.com's clunky solution.

If the sides were changed and Apple offered what buymusic.com is offering and vice-versa, the Apple hate would be coming from everyone about how crappy the solution is. But, since this solution competes with Apple, most people seem to be giving it the benefit of the doubt.

I am very surprised they have Reflections since Amazon doesn't have it, but as you can see they don't really have the type of music I listen to. Nor are they likely to start catering to such a niche as mine any time soon...

Also, notice that I was commenting on their song selection. I can't comment on their usability as I've never used either service.

 

[ViRGE]

I believe Apple does have a song request section somewhere, where you can request that a song be added to their list. I would imagine this isn't too hard to come by on for the Big 5 music, but if any of those guys are on smaller labels or indies, it'll take a bit longer. Since Apple won't talk to a band on a band-by-band basis(they want to talk to some sort of collective representative; takes too much work otherwise), the indie would need to belong to one of these collectives.

 

[mosco]

Originally posted by: dwell
What a POS and the ads are total rip-offs of the iTunes Music Store ones. I can't wait to laugh whent they go out of business.

I also noticed that, if you changed the mp3 player to the ipod, you would think it was an apple ad.

Kinda stupid not to get the same prices for all songs. Not to mention different songs having different restrictions on what you can do with them. Not very user friendly.

For the person that asked about ITMS for the PC. I think the latest financial call they said they hoped to have itunes for the PC out by the end of the year.
[Edit]
I also wonder how buymusic is going to handle independent music.

 

[Go3iverson]

Hey all,

If anyone here's caught any of my posts, I'm a primarily Apple user. I love the iTMS. Seriously. It's dirt easy to use and the downloads are very fast on it. I know that's really determined by your bandwith, but still, you can hit slow downloads on cable modem that feel like a 28.8 modem...this is not the case. I download a whole album in a matter of about 2 minutes. I've purchased a few albums and some singles and the sound quality is great, they're easy to burn and they can be used in Apple's other apps very easily. For example, I recenly finished a DV project that I used iDVD to bring together. iDVD read my AACs fine and imported them into my soundtrack with no problems. No limits of how many burns you get on a song, just a playlist. Unlimited amounts of iPods and up to 3 authorized computers. They mean that too! I took my iPod to work and when it went to play one of the AAC's, it asked for my Apple ID and password and verified it against the server.

I'm very dissapointed with Buy.com/Buymusic.com. I hadn't really planned on purchasing much of anything from their music site, being so happy with the iTMS, but I thought maybe they'd have something I'd like. First day, no problem. Looked around, browsed, realized it was a rip. Second day, whoa! I'm not allowed in your store?! I HAVE to use IE and Windows?! No I don't, that's why I bought my Apple!

I can tell you the Apple boards and community as a whole is outraged. Most of us have agreed to boycott the store and their buy.com parent. True, we may be small in numbers, but a lot of us do purchase quite a bit from there, especially around the holidays.

As an Apple user, I want the PC world to have the iTMS as well. I have sent Apple queries about the Windows version, which *IS* in the works, via their OS X feed back and the ADC channels for the Panther seeding (Panther Rocks, btw!). If you have any doubt about the port of iTunes, Apple had even been advertising for Windows programmers at one point, I don't know if they still need more or not, though. I can tell you even at WWDC 2003, Steve Jobs stated again that he's very eager to get iTunes out to the Windows community and I believe he is. I mean, really, it only makes sense. There's lots of money to be made off this thing!

If you have any concerns about iTMS for Windows, I encourage you to email Apple or go to their website, click on the Mac OS X tab and fill in a Feedback form letting them know that you too want this great program for your PC.

PS: I officially just graduated college earlier today! So go me! 🙂

 

[isaacmacdonald]

wma sounds great when compared at low bitrates, but at higher bitrates it's desire to "smooth" sound gets annoying. I wouldn't pay for wma.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: Go3iverson
Hey all,

If anyone here's caught any of my posts, I'm a primarily Apple user. I love the iTMS. Seriously. It's dirt easy to use and the downloads are very fast on it. I know that's really determined by your bandwith, but still, you can hit slow downloads on cable modem that feel like a 28.8 modem...this is not the case. I download a whole album in a matter of about 2 minutes. I've purchased a few albums and some singles and the sound quality is great, they're easy to burn and they can be used in Apple's other apps very easily. For example, I recenly finished a DV project that I used iDVD to bring together. iDVD read my AACs fine and imported them into my soundtrack with no problems. No limits of how many burns you get on a song, just a playlist. Unlimited amounts of iPods and up to 3 authorized computers. They mean that too! I took my iPod to work and when it went to play one of the AAC's, it asked for my Apple ID and password and verified it against the server.

I'm very dissapointed with Buy.com/Buymusic.com. I hadn't really planned on purchasing much of anything from their music site, being so happy with the iTMS, but I thought maybe they'd have something I'd like. First day, no problem. Looked around, browsed, realized it was a rip. Second day, whoa! I'm not allowed in your store?! I HAVE to use IE and Windows?! No I don't, that's why I bought my Apple!

I can tell you the Apple boards and community as a whole is outraged. Most of us have agreed to boycott the store and their buy.com parent. True, we may be small in numbers, but a lot of us do purchase quite a bit from there, especially around the holidays.

As an Apple user, I want the PC world to have the iTMS as well. I have sent Apple queries about the Windows version, which *IS* in the works, via their OS X feed back and the ADC channels for the Panther seeding (Panther Rocks, btw!). If you have any doubt about the port of iTunes, Apple had even been advertising for Windows programmers at one point, I don't know if they still need more or not, though. I can tell you even at WWDC 2003, Steve Jobs stated again that he's very eager to get iTunes out to the Windows community and I believe he is. I mean, really, it only makes sense. There's lots of money to be made off this thing!

If you have any concerns about iTMS for Windows, I encourage you to email Apple or go to their website, click on the Mac OS X tab and fill in a Feedback form letting them know that you too want this great program for your PC.

PS: I officially just graduated college earlier today! So go me! 🙂

congrats?

 

[LS20]

firstly, its only at low bitrates where the WMA is substantially better than MP3... to me, 64kbpbs WMA sounds like 112kbps Mp3. 128kbps is supposedly equivalent to 160kbps... but either way its still inferior to the 192KBPS mp3 and ~200kbps VBR that i collect/archive.

secondly, no, you probably wont be able to tell the difference between 128 and 192kbps on your computer speakers because they arent very accurate. remember loud isnt = accurate. with my 30$ koss ksc-35 headphones i can tell a difference. its not apparent in casual listening, but if you pick out cymbals and snare drums on, for example, a dmb intro, you can tell a difference in their tonal qualities.

thirdly, my car player and winamp supports wma, but i dont think ill embrace it simply because mp3 is the established standards. all my tagging/naming/ripping software for my 5000 files are mp3.. i think ill keep it that way

fourthly, none of the artists i listen to are on buymusic.com anyways 😛